自十八大以来，我国对于贪污腐败犯罪的打击力度不断增强，2015年《刑法修正案（九）》和2016年《关于办理贪污贿赂刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》中对贪污罪定罪量刑标准的修改，更是彰显了惩治贪污犯罪的决心。

近几年法院审结的贪污案件呈逐年下降趋势，显示出新法的适用取得了一定成效。为探究新立法和司法解释能否适应并满足现实要求，即司法实践中如何把握数额与情节的关系，贪污犯罪的量刑现状如何，以及新法的修改是否有效实现了贪污罪量刑的均衡等问题，本文采用实证研究的方法，选取2019年S省有效的贪污案件判决书共计194份，逐一阅读并提取关键信息进行分析。

基于研究上述问题之需要，本文从犯罪主体、犯罪对象以及量刑结果这三个方面设计了8个问题，并提炼出10个影响因素，包括犯罪主体的年龄、文化程度、犯罪主体的类型、人数、非法占有公共财物的手段、贪污数额的分档、公共财物所属领域、刑期、加重处罚情节、减轻处罚情节。本文通过表格、饼状图、柱状图辅以文字说明来描述贪污案件的事实，归纳出现阶段贪污犯罪的问题，主要包括涉案人员呈高学历年轻化特征、基层公务人员比例较高、非法占有公共财物的手段认定不明以及量刑轻缓化、不公化现象明显。

分析表明贪污犯罪成因复杂，主要归因于单位和法律两个层面。就单位层面而言，其内部权责划分不清、对重点领域监督不力，以及廉政文化教育宣传力度不足，为贪污犯罪提供条件的同时也导致部分官员缺乏思想觉悟。就法律层面而言，一是司法实践中未准确适用“数额+情节”的量刑模式，对加重处罚情节考量不足但对从宽情节幅度的把握宽松，存在从宽情节重复评价的不合理现象；二是立法规定的贪污罪入罪数额标准偏高，使小额贪污行为难以被惩处。成因的复杂性，决定了治理措施的多样性。预防贪污犯罪，要构建并持续落实“惩治+监督+教育”的一体化布局。现阶段贪污案件存量依然较大，反贪工作任重而道远。

本研究的目的在于积极探索预防贪污犯罪的举措。因此，除了验证以往研究对于我国贪污犯罪量刑失衡之观点，从贪污罪的“惩治”着眼之外，本研究将更进一步地关注贪污犯罪主体、贪污手段定性、公共财物所属领域等实务问题。通过多维度、全面性的分析，力图构思更合理、精准、有效的贪污犯罪预防体系。

Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, our government is gradually intensifying crackdown on embezzlement and corruption. The revisions in the Amendment (IX) to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (2015) and The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases of Embezzlement and Bribery (2016) about the conviction and sentencing standard of embezzlement further demonstrates the determination of the government to fight against embezzlement.

The number of cases of corruption has been decreasing year by year, showing that the application of the new law has achieved some results. This paper aims to explore whether the new legislation and judicial interpretation can meet the realistic requirements. More specifically, the paper discusses how to grasp the relationship between the amount and the circumstances in judicial practices, what the current state of the sentencing is, and whether the revision of the new law effectively achieves the balance of the sentencing. This paper adopts the method of empirical research, selects a total of 194 valid case judgments of crimes of embezzlement in S province in 2019, reads and extracts key information one by one for analysis.

To investigate the above problems, this paper designs 8 specific problems from the following three aspects: the subject of the crime, the object of the crime, and the result of sentencing. The paper also extracts 10 factors, including the age of the subject, the level of education, the type of the subject, the number of subjects, the means of illegal possession of public property, the amount of corruption, the field of public property, the term of imprisonment, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the punishment. This paper describes the facts of crimes of embezzlement utilizing tables, pie charts, and bar charts supplemented by written descriptions, and summarizes four problems we are currently facing in the crimes of embezzlement: the characteristics of the crime subjects that they tend to be young and highly educated, the high proportion of grass-roots public officials, the vagueness of the determination of the means of illegal possession of public property and the phenomenon of light sentencing and unfairness.

The analysis shows that the causes of crimes of embezzlement are complex, which can be mainly divided into two levels: the entity and the law. At the level of the entity, the lack of internal division of powers and responsibilities, the poor supervision of key areas, and the inadequate education on the clean government culture, not only create the preconditions for crimes, but also results in a lack of ideological consciousness among some officials at the same time. On the other hand, two main problems are shown at the level of the law. The first problem is that the sentencing mode of "amount plus circumstances" is not applied accurately in the practice of the law, more specifically, the aggravating punishment cases are not considered enough while the mitigating punishment cases are considered too loosely, and there is an unreasonable phenomenon of repeated evaluation of the mitigating circumstances. The second problem is that the amount of money as part of the conviction standard of embezzlement is high, which makes it difficult to punish small acts of embezzlement. The complexity of the causes determines the diversity of governance measures, we should construct and continuously implement the integrated layout of "punishment, supervision, and education". At the current stage, the stock of cases of embezzlement is still large and the fight against embezzlement has a long way to go.

The purpose of this study is to actively explore initiatives to prevent embezzlement. Therefore, in addition to verifying the claim of previous research that the sentencing of crimes of embezzlement in China is imbalance, from the perspective of "punishment" of crimes of embezzlement, this study will pay more attention to the subject of embezzlement, the fields that public properties belong to and other practical issues. Through multi-dimensional and comprehensive analysis, the paper tries to conceive a more reasonable, accurate, and effective system for the prevention of crimes of embezzlement and corruption.